Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (70))
Jump to: navigation, search

Christian Church of Jerusalem[edit]

Surely some mention is warranted especially given rising discussion of the impact on the rise of Pauline Christianity over the Jerusalem form. Wblakesx (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Destruction of Jerusalem[edit]

I'm not sure if this counts as a duplicate or if the articles can exist separately, but I notice we have also had Destruction of Jerusalem for quite some time. Adam Bishop 05:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Destruction of Jerusalem[edit]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd gone to the disambiguation page for Siege of Jerusalem and found that this article didn't yet exist, so I just assumed it needed doing and wasn't under another name. Still, since this one is more about the events of the siege, rather than the destruction afterwards, and follows a more standard format for a battle/siege article, I think it's cool to keep it. I'll have it and Destruction of Jerusalem link to one another though. Thanks again.

LordAmeth 11:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the destruction section, this page refers to the Solomonic temple and Jospehus' contention that the temple had stood for 1,000 years. While the article mentions the Herodian construction, it misses the fact that A) this is the post-golah temple, the Second Temple, not the Solomonic temple which was destroyed in the exile, and B) while the Herodian addition/rebuilding project did demolish and reconstruct the temple, as well as enhancing the structure of the mount, it still is considered the Second Temple because the worship continued.

Kirkengaard (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


The strength of the Jewish army: 13,000 men... Jewish Casualties: 60,000 - 1.1M?.. .. Is this possible? Am I missing something? Are you including the civilians? Unissakävelijä 05:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The casualties included civilians as it was customary at the time (unfortunately). Humus sapiensTalk 06:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
The 1.1 million casualty doesn't seem realistic IMHO, despite the influx for religious observance. I would add some accounts have Titus ordering the Romans not to kill anyone who did not resist during the operations in the southern districts of the city. --Kenneth Kloby (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The 1.1 million casualty figure is indeed hardly creditable, and unreferenced; I've removed it. Figures for casualties and strength of forces need citation to reliable sources.MayerG (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I see the 1.1 million figure is attributed to Josephus. This still seems improbable, but I've put the figure back with its attribution.MayerG (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Josephus's figures are no longer believed. I've cited a modern source that explicitly disputes them. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It also says some - what was it - 97,000 were captured? This matter seems like it needs additional research. It might be counting those who died or were captured in the final part of the war. Or perhaps the area surrounding Jerusalem had a large increase in population due to the first Roman campaing against Judea. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Where do the strength and casulty figures come from? Josephus' 1.1M sounds implausible (and ancient writers seem to have a habit of exagerating numbers in battles), but the 60k given in the info box is completely unsourced. Furthermore, "60k strength in three factions" and "60k casulties" implies either civilians are being counted as combatants, or ignored as casulties. 11:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardog (talkcontribs)

While we're at it, how many men per legion was Titus sporting in his 4 legions that he had 75,000 men? (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

7th of September?[edit]

The city was completely under Roman control by the 7th of September.

Is it possible to know this date for certain? Bear in mind that the jewish calendar is different from our current Gregorian calendar. And before the Gregorian calendar, we had also the Julian calendar. --Pinnecco 16:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Since it is possible to calculate all the transitions (including those you've mentioned above), and since there is no serious dispute about it, the historians may say that they know the date, so we should be fine. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The date of the final destruction of the Temple has been established with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It is definitely not September 7th. Josephus was writing for a Roman audience and used a calendar that had wide usage at the time. He habitually used the Syro-Macedonian lunisolar calendar that he treated as the equivalent of the Hebrew calendar. In AD 70, the date he gives for the destruction, 10 Loos (381 AS), fell on Sunday August 5. This tallies with the description that it was the day following the Sabbath. It is interesting to note that this is the same date given by Jules Oppert in the 19th century after a meticulous reconstruction of the Hebrew calendar of the period. -- Unsigned

This needs to be explored further. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Biblical source for prophecy, moved from article space.[edit]

Jesus made the prophecy himself to his disciples. The prophecy was fulfilled not "alleged"

Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Luke 21:6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Luke 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. User:

Sorry, is it just me, or is there something EXTREMELY WRONG about having a section on Christian prophecies of the destruction, and nothing on JEWISH prophecies of the destruction? Prophecies that, if one reads the Jewish scriptures, make the above references look like a discussion on the hydrodynamics of sugar-coated biscuits? There should of course be included reference to the plethora of Talmudic passages indicating the uselessness of the Temple and the necessity of its destruction.

Thank you for removing this from the article. It looks like the user doen't conform to Wikipedia standards and has caused borderline vandelism. ForestJay 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I was not aware that there were Talmudic "prophecies" on the matter of the destruction of Jerusalem. If someone could site those, that would be great. Anyway, Jesus being himself a Jew, and connecting Daniel's abomination of desolation (part of the Torah), would make these prophecies essentially Jewish. Really early Christians only had the Torah as their Bible, since nothing of what we know of as the "New Testament" existed yet. So, outside of the Talmud commentary, I'm not sure what's the difference between a Christian and a Jewish prophecy as concerns the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the first "Christians" were Jews in fact.

(^^^ Nobody signed this stuff -- whose comment? Kirkengaard (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Kirkengaard, I don't see any obvious pointing to the scripture you mentioned having any symbolic signifigance. I would have gone with Matthew 24:15-22 which says "Therefore, when YOU catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains. Let the man on the housetop not come down to take the goods out of his house; and let the man in the field not return to the house to pick up his outer garment. Woe to the pregnant women and those suckling a baby in those days! Keep praying that YOUR flight may not occur in wintertime, nor on the sabbath day; for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short." Which seems like a direct referrence.
I'd be very interested in seeing some of those Telmudic prophecies on the issue. I've never heard of that before myself. -- (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispersal of Jews[edit]

This article doesn't discuss the aftermath of the siege, and the resulting dispersal of the Jewish people to other countries. A section about this should be added. Badagnani 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was looking for that very topic when I came to this article. -- (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Because if discussed we will find out that the dispersed are so called negros in the Atlantic Slave Trade.

David Libbett (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Christians believe??[edit]

The article says "Christians believe" and even "most Christians believe" several things. I'm a Christian, and the details of the destruction of the Temple are rarely if ever discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Yes, we do believe that, because in the Gospels He DOES Prophesy the Temple's Destruction.--Splashen (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes Christians do believe**

I am a Christian and it is among many discussions, even look at the book of revelation. So many people try to interpret everything John wrote to be after 70AD, the fall of Jerusalem. So if I may beg a differ.

-Cappy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Eliminate the terms "Preterism" and "Premillenialism" from discussion?[edit]

The above discussion is very problematic, because, particularly on the Preterism side, not all Preterists would reject the role of ethnic Jews in future Christian theology. Jay Adams and RC Sproul, two relatively big hitters in Reformed Christian circles have both expressed preterist views of some sort, yet have also expressed views that there will be a large salvation in the future of ethnic Jews, based on Romans 11. So there is not unity among Preterists on this issue by any means. Even if there was, that's not necessarily the main point of Preterism; Preterism is not exclusively concerned with talking about ethnic Israel. Replacement theology is a better term, but it is not synonymous with Preterism. And Premillenialism, though overall tending to favor a future place for ethnic Israel, is not synonymous with that either. So called "Dispensational Premillenialism" may be more concerned with that, but there are other "non-dispensational" or sometimes called "historical" Premillenialists who reject many of the "Dispensational" assumptions. Then again, any discussion of Dispensationalism is an involved one. I propose eliminating the terms "Premillenialism" and "Preterism" from the discussion. Rather, there are several positions evangelical Christians (who actually study and discuss the issue; certainly there are plenty for whom it isn't even on their radar) take on the issue.

1. What happened in A.D. 70 essentially eliminates any special concern by God for ethnic Israel today or in the future whatsoever. Though ethnic Jews may become Christians, there is no special significance to that. 2. What happened in A.D. 70 eliminates a special concern for Israel as "God's Chosen People" collectively, but their historical place has not been forgotten by God, and there is still special significance to the salvation of ethnic Jews, albeit along more individualistic lines. 3. What happened in A.D. 70 for a time eliminates Israel's place as God's chosen people, but in the future they will mount a massive comeback, albeit through salvation through the Church (Romans 11:26). 4. What happened in A.D. 70 reflects the institution of the "Church Age", where for a time, though not exclusively, a non-Jewish led church serves the purpose of being the people of God, but that time will come to an end (Romans 11:25), and the Jewish people will reestablish themselves as "God's people" in line with (Romans 11:26). John ISEM (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I would also agree that a uniquely religious Jewish perspective (non-Christian) would be welcome in the article.John ISEM (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the terms preterism and premillennialism should be removed. Not only is the argument for/against the terms not NPOV, its too reductionistic (as you have already observed). Your 4 categories concerning the implications of the event are good. It shows all Christians perceive the event eschatologically, even in different ways. I would also add comments concerning the Olivet discourse, since (from the Christian perspective) that is the starting point for the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Lamorak (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Antonia Fortress[edit]

Can't claim to be an eyewitness, but...

It seems the battle for Antonia Fortress (AF) was the key to the siege.

(AF was previously the fortress for the Roman garrison of Jerusalem. Prior to the siege the Judeans captured the fortress and were able to make good use of the weapons captured, especially the artillery.)

The first phase of the assault on AF went badly for the Romans. In preparation for the assault the Romans constructed a number of armored towers. Fully appreciating what these towers could accomplish, the towers had inherent rams, the Judeans conducted a ground attack against the newly constructed towers and destroyed them. While the loss of the towers was a terrible blow for the Roman assault, it seems Roman morale was affected even more. This morale setback was on top of the difficulties endured in breaching the Second Wall, which surrounded the Tyropean City.

The Roman response was to begin construction of new towers and begin undermining the walls of AF. The Judeans attempted to destroy these towers too but were unsuccessful. In an attempt to foil the Roman mining operations the Judeans began to undermine the Roman mining operation. The Judean commander in the vicinity, John I believe, also began construction on a makeshift wall should the Roman mining operations succeed.

In what could be considered a stroke of luck for the Romans the Judean undermining operation was so successful the north wall of AF collapsed, exposing the makeshift wall.

Despite this turn in events Roman morale was at its breaking point, so much it seems Titus had to make dramatic appeals to his legionnaires to continue the assault. Subsequent events would prove these appeals to have been somewhat effective, although not universally.

One account has a group of ambitious cavalrymen (dismounted, of course) accompanied by a cornicen secretively scaling the makeshift wall at night, Titus was unaware of this operation. This raid caught much of the garrison sleeping, a panic ensued. The cornicen blew an alert to the Romans, who realized the defense had been compromised and they advanced to support the cavalrymen. With the Romans inside AF and the Judeans panicking, the assault on AF was at that point more of mopping up operation; however, during this fighting a fire broke out. It's not clear if this fire spread to Temple Quarter and was the fire which ultimately consumed the Temple.

The Roman assault on the Temple Quarter was robustly opposed by the Judeans, as expected, but with the fire and waning morale to contend with the Judeans were eventually driven out of the Temple Quarter. At this point the Romans had essentially won the battle, although the assault on Herod's Palace and the mopping up of the city's southern districts remained.

--Kenneth Kloby (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


This article includes next to nothing on the background event and wider context of Roman imperial control which led up to the Siege, the circumstances in Roman Palestine, or the events immediately leading up to the revolt and suppression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Curious second sentence[edit]

I find it pretty strange that the second sentence of the article (per April 7th 2014 CE) in the end states that the Jerusalem has been "occupied by Jewish forces since 66 AD". Ok, the idea of the word 'occupy' has altered somehow, but isn't it a bit misleading in this context, or is it a serious attempt at stating that the defenders of Jerusalem where occupyers of their own holy city, addressing the Roman authority in much the same way as the occupyers of Wall Street, for instant? --Xact (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Title of this article[edit]

I thought it was common practise to use CE (common era) on Wikipedia, and not AD? Should not this article be moved to Siege of Jerusalem (CE 70) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Huldra: I perfectly agree with you, though we don't even need CE here Siege of Jerusalem (70) is enough.GreyShark (dibra) 13:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneGreyShark (dibra) 20:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the move by Nyttend was in violation of this consensus, achieved on 2014 and having no objection.GreyShark (dibra) 11:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
See WP:ERA. Policy does not prefer one over the other, and you need an actual consensus one way or the other before switching an article from one to the other; if you go against that, you get reverted. Project-wide, votes at variance with policy and similar community standards get rejected, and because the discussion goes against WP:ERA's standards for moving and because the votes presume that policy favors CE over AD, there's not a single vote here that can be accepted. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Destruction date[edit]

Why the final date is indicated as 3rd of August in the infobox rather than September 25th ? Pinea (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)